Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Page 4 of about 1,538 results (0.002 seconds)

Jul 03 1934 (PC)

Chimanlal Ganpatram Ghanchi Vs. Natvarlal Maganlal

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1935Bom131; (1935)37BOMLR62; 155Ind.Cas.7

..... . the second rent-note purporting to have been executed jointly in favour of the mortgagee and divali was repudiated in that suit by divali, the suit was, however, dismissed for multifariousness and for misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the court did not go into the merits. in 1928 muli died, and towards the end of 1929 plaintiff has brought ..... between landlord and tenant, to raise the question of his rights as against the rights of muli or the mortgagee. to do so would have made the suit bad for multifariousness, and again it would have been dismissed without being considered on the merits. this question was, therefore, not constructively in issue in the suit of 1922, and on that ground .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 2001 (HC)

Goparaju Venkata Bharata Rao and anr. Vs. Nagula Ramakotayya and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2001AP425

..... . under those circumstances, the trial court rightly held that issue in favour of the plaintiff.21. with regard to the issue of maintainability of the suit on the ground of multifariousness, though the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement against the appellants-defendants 1 and 2, and also the relief of recovery of possession ..... this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of the agreement, whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties and multifariousness.17. with regard to the issue of maintainability the trial court considered the circumstances with regard to the dismissal of the injunction suit i.e. withdrawal of the suit filed ..... will is in the custody of kopparthi yegyanna. the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and also bad for mis-joinder of cause of action i.e. multifariousness. the plaintiff is therefore guilty of laches. therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of specific performance of the suit and the suit is barred by time.9. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 1914 (PC)

Bal Krishna Das Vs. Hira Lal Bagla and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1914All393; (1914)ILR36All406

..... same lady. these transfers he alleges to be null and void as against his interest. there were various defences, among them being the plea that the suit was bad for multifariousness. during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 came to terms. under the compromise that house which was transferred to defendants 3 and 4 and ..... 2. on the basis of this compromise the court below gave the plaintiff a decree as against defendant 1 and 2, but it held that the suit was bad for multifariousness and it called upon the plaintiff to elect as to the portion of his suit with which he would proceed. the plaintiff declined to elect, and so the court below ..... civil procedure, the point is covered by the clear language of order i, rule 3. under that order it is clear that the plaintiff's suit was not bad for multifariousness and be was entitled to join all the defendants as parties to the suit so as to enable him to recover his share in the whole of the estate of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2000 (HC)

Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd. Vs. Prem H. Lalwani and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2000IIIAD(Delhi)490; 84(2000)DLT565; 2000(53)DRJ483

..... received by them. in their written statement preliminary objection has also been taken challenging the territorial jurisdiction of this court. it has been submitted that the suit is bad for multifariousness, inasmuch as there are three distinct agreement to sell and three different suits ought to have been filed. it is further disputed that the orders prayed for in this application ..... also argued before me. 2. as indicated above three questions arise for determination at this stage, namely: (i) whether the suit is liable to be rejected on the ground of multifariousness; (ii) whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit ; and (iii) whether the reliefs claimed for in the application ought to be granted. 3. mention has already ..... land sought to be purchased by the plaintiff. in these circumstances, i am unable to accept the arguments of the defendants, at this stage, that the suit is bad for multifariousness. it is quite likely that in the event of three separate suits having being filed, an objection that a single suit should alone have been preferred, could well have been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 2011 (HC)

Deepak Dashrath Chahande and ors. Vs. Civil Judge, Junior Division and ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... of the view that the composite application filed by the petitioners against respondent nos. 6 to 11 was maintainable and did not suffer from the defect of multifariousness. the petition has already been withdrawn against respondents nos. 12 to 14 and the other respondents are formal parties. we, therefore, hold that the ..... which is reproduced hereunder :"8. with regard to the plea of multifariousness in respect of respondents nos. 6 to 11, we might point out that section 15(2) provides that after an election petition is filed, an ..... application of the principles as contained in the civil procedure code, the common election petition was maintainable. it was not a case where the petitions were suffering from multifariousness inasmuch as different causes of action were sought to be combined in one election petition. the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is paragraph (8), ..... was different for each of the election petitioners. hence, the election petition was not suffering from the vice of multifariousness. if multifarious causes of action were to be considered, the learned judge would have been within his right not to entertain a petition containing ..... multifarious causes of action. therefore, in the light of the judgment of the learned single judge of this court in bhimaji laxman .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 06 1947 (PC)

Bhagwandas Ranchoddas Modi Vs. Natwarlal Maganlal Mehta

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR471

..... issues which were raised at the hearing and which read as follows:-(1) whether this honourable court has jurisdiction to try this suit ?(2) whether the suit is bad for multifariousness ?(3) whether the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain the suit?(4) whether there were any books of accounts of the four trusts mentioned in the plaint ?(5) whether the defendant ..... the two questions involved in the first issue which were argued before me.16. as regards the second issue, mr. k.k. desai argues that the suit is bad for multifariousness because there are four charities involved in the suit and the accounts of four different charities will have to be taken. in my opinion this is in substance the advocate ..... , whose duty it is to protect charity moneys, whether belonging to one charity or several charities, and it is against the same defendant. i, therefore, hold that there is no multifariousness, and i answer that issue in the negative.17. so far as issue no. 3 is concerned, it was argued that on the facts of the case the plaintiffs were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 13 1930 (PC)

Mithai and ors. Vs. Hasan Ali and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1930All863; 128Ind.Cas.827

..... a second and subsequent suit. in our opinion the learned subordinate judge ought to have acceded to the request of the respondents' counsel that he should ignore the plea of multifariousness raised by the defendants themselves and ought to have tried the case on the merits. it is not suggested that either of the parties have suffered on the merits by ..... the result the learned munsif dismissed the suit. it is to be noted that in the order dismissing the suit he does not give multifariousness as one of the reasons for the order that he was passing.3. on appeal by the plaintiffs the learned subordinate judge started by saying that the munsif decided the ..... munsif framed eight issues and he decided all of them. he found that the plaintiffs had no right to maintain the suit. he found that the suit was bad for multifariousness and he found that most of the buildings on the site were more than 12 years old. he also found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any damages. in ..... remand so far as the aforesaid four persons are concerned. the case will go back to the learned subordinate judge who will decide the appeal on merits. the question of multifariousness need not be gone into. the costs in this court and in the lower courts will abide the result. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 14 1958 (HC)

Seth Roshan Lal Etc. Vs. Dewan Bhagwan Das

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1959P& H367

..... grounds (a) that the tribunal at delhi had no jurisdiction because, excepting govind ram, the remaining judgment-debtors were residing outside its territorial jurisdiction, (b) that it was bad for multifariousness because one application had been made in relation to a debt that had already been split up into there and in fact the creditor should have made three separate applications ..... civil procedure are attracted and the learned tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that it had jurisdiction against all the judgment-debtors in this case.the question of multifariousness is also connected with the question of jurisdiction because the substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the judgment-debtors is that if separate applications had been brought ..... held decrees was to gain an advantage over them to attract the jurisdiction of the delhi tribunal and in fact in that he succeeded. the application is, therefore, bad for multifariousness, but if this was the sole defect, i agree on the basis of it the claim of the creditor could not possibly be defeated.11. in so far as govind .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2005 (HC)

Jamal Vs. Safia Beevi

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2005(2)KLT359

..... petition is filed uniting all the causes of action there will be misjoinder of causes of action and misjoinder of parties. petition of such a nature would be bad for multifariousness.12. the misjoinder of cause of action is however regarded as irregularity and not a ground on which petition be dismissed unless objection is taken at the appropriate time. objection ..... distinct portions of the same structure, in the event of which there is no misjoinder of causes of action or misjoinder of parties and the petition is not hit by multifariousness.10. the difficulty arises when the landlord unites several causes of actions against various tenants who are in occupation of distinct portions of same building under separate tenancy arrangements. question ..... tenants in a single rent control petition in the event of which such a petition will be bad for misjoinder of causes of actions or misjoinder of parties due to multifariousness, is the question that has come up for consideration in these cases.2. a division bench of this court in c.r.p. nos. 714 of 1992 and 573 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1935 (PC)

Annamalai Chettiar Vs. S. Rm. Ar. Ramanathan Chettiar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1936Mad311

..... to have the earliest opportunity to repel such a disgraceful charge, and not to seek a further opportunity of having the claim against them dismissed on the technical plea of multifariousness. this natural attitude is not the attitude adopted by the petitioners in these petitions.7. no case has been brought to our notice in which leave to appeal to his ..... an appeal from the decree of the subordinate judge of devakotta dated 7th november 1932 dismissing o.s. no. 109 of 1930 on his file on the preliminary ground of 'multifariousness' or misjoinder of defendants and of causes of action. in appeal this court held that there was no such misjoinder and remanded the suit to the original court for disposal ..... majesty in privy council has been granted from an order deciding a point of procedure like a plea of multifariousness. in the present case the plea of multifariousness is moreover devoid of any real substance; persistence in such a plea deserved no encouragement. it is no doubt open to us under clause (c) of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //